Jack and Myra Mansfield at odds with Oak Ridge over zoning

Jack and Myra Mansfield bought a small piece of property in the Hendrix Creek neighborhood in 2007 and have, since that time, been trying to get the city's approval to build a home there.

by Beverly Majors

Jack and Myra Mansfield bought a small piece of property in the Hendrix Creek neighborhood in 2007 and have, since that time, been trying to get the city's approval to build a home there.

But Oak Ridge City Council and the city's Planning Commission has either not recommended or has denied the construction of a home on the lot at least twice in the past few years.

At a recent Council meeting, the Mansfields again requested an ordinance to amend the property's use from open space to residential. The city's Community Development department staff again recommended denial of the amendment.

However, this time, after a public hearing and first reading of the ordinance, Council postponed a decision to ask for a legal opinion on the issue.

The controversy lies within the interpretation of the property deeds.

The Mansfields told Council none of the deeds in their possession show an open space clause, but City Attorney Ken Krushenski said the Mansfields don't have a warranty deed which would show "a different story." He said they have a Clerk & Master deed.

Jack Mansfields said the lot was never subdivided, never publicly owned and the city was never given permission to use it as open space or greenbelt

The city, however, contends the property, identified as Parcel 572.05, is zoned R-1-C with a PUD (planned unit development) overlay and is labeled as open space in the final plat for Hendrix Creek PUD, Phase IV, recorded in 1981.

Mansfields contents that when the Hendrix Creek PUD divided open space lots among the adjacent homeowners by ordinance that prohibited the erection of new structures, the property he purchased was not included because it was never transferred.

The ordinance in question states “... All of such lands shall be so divided and added to the lots of adjacent landowners, that all such transfers be subject to deed restrictions prohibiting

the erection of new structures within the parcels so transferred, and no remnant parcels shall be left."

Parcel 572.05 was to be included as a parcel to be divided but was not except for a .24 acre portion that was combined with a residential lot on Holbrook Lane, and was left as a separate lot.

Several homeowners on Holbrook said their property values would decrease if the property in question is rezoned. At least one homeowner told Council the greenbelt (or open space) was the main reason he purchased his home in 1993.

"The original intent was for a buffer to exist," said Bill Simpson, a Holbrook Lane homeowner. He said changing the zoning ordinance would benefit one person at the expense of the others.

Another person, who was not a resident, suggested the city purchase the property from the Mansfields.

Council member Charlie Hensley, who is also a member of the Planning Commission, said he would not support the amended ordinance and said the Mansfields are "trying to increase your property value at the expense of others."

Council member Trina Baughn, however, questioned the legality of the issue, asking if the city's zoning ordinance has an open space clause for private property.

"We're asking to use their private property," she said. "I will not support it.”

Community Development Director Kathryn Baldwin said "typically a greenbelt is set up as public; it's an open space for the enjoyment of people in the subdivision."

"Sounds like the city messed up way back when ... maybe we should buy the lot," said Mayor Pro Tem Jane Miller.

When asked about other potential lots that could change because of the issue, Baldwin said she didn't know.

Council also discussed setbacks on the property that limit building space.

Baldwin said the parcel "has a small building envelope and has a drainage ditch running through it." She also said the parcel has no deed restriction because it was never intended for a building.”

After a short discussion of deeds and titles, Council member David Mosby said he was "wrestling with something — the landowner doesn't have use of his property."

Baughn, as well as Council member Anne Garcia Garland, asked for a legal opinion before continuing and asked that the amended ordinance be tabled.